Karnataka High Court
Shri Venkataraman M Ambig S/O Mastappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 May, 2022
Author: K. Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101582 OF 2022
BETWEEN
SHRI VENKATARAMAN M AMBIG
S/O MASTAPPA AMBIG,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCC. FISHERMAN
R/O. DIVAGI, KUMTA TALUK - 581304.
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN PRABHAKAR TARIKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPD. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD
DHARWAD - 01
THOUGH ITS U.K CEN CRIME
POLICE STATION, KARWAR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH,HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND GRANT ANTICIPATORY
BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME
NO.21/2021 REGISTERED BY U.K. CEN CRIME POLICE STATION
FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 67(B) OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the 'Cr.P.C.' for short) for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.21/2021 of U.K. CEN Crime Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 67(B) of Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred as the 'IT Act', for short).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the case registered by CEN Crime Police, petitioner was arrested on 06.12.2021. It is alleged that they received information from the Cyber Crime prevention (CCPWC)/National Cyber Crime Report Portal (NCCRP)/National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) that petitioner said to have uploaded four video graphs of minor female child through his 3 mobile phone. After getting the information, UK CEN Police registered case against the petitioner and making efforts to arrest this petitioner. Hence, he has approached the District and Sessions Judge for grant of bail and the same came to be rejected. Hence, petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. He is a fisherman, aged 57 years. He do not know how to operate the android mobile phone and upload the video graphs. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate in the investigation. Hence, prays to allow the bail petition.
5. Per contra, Learned HCGP seriously objected the bail petition and contended that petitioner is responsible for the incident since he is the owner of the mobile from which video graphs are uploaded and the said mobile phone is recovered from him. If he is granted with bail, again he will commit the same offence. Petitioner is required for investigation. Hence, prays to reject the bail petition. 4
6. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State, perused the records.
7. On perusal of the record, there is a prima facie material to show that from his mobile petitioner-accused has uploaded the videos of minor girl in the Social media. Therefore, the complainant gave a complaint against the petitioner under Section 67(B) of Information and Technology Act, 2000. Of-course mobile is in the name of petitioner. Petitioner is a fisherman aged 57 years. Police still have to investigate whether he himself uploaded the video graphs or some body else used his mobile phone. At this stage, it cannot be said that since sim card and mobile phone are in his name, he has uploaded the same. Of-course, that itself cannot be a ground to reject the bail petition. The alleged offences are triable by magistrate and maximum punishment is 5 years. The apprehension of the prosecution may be safeguarded by imposing certain conditions. Petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this court. 5
8. Therefore, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail by imposing certain stringent conditions, no prejudice will be caused to the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, I pass the following :
ORDER The criminal petition is allowed. The respondent-U.K. CEN Crime Police, Karwar is directed to release the petitioner/accused on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.21/2021, subject to the following conditions:
i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.
ii. The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iii. The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.6
iv. The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences.
v. The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer. He shall appear before the investigating Officer on every fortnightly i.e. on 2nd and 16th day of calander for a period of two months or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier.
vi. The petitioner is deemed to be in custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
If any of the conditions is violated, then the prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE HMB